Buxley New Caches Not Being Updated ?

November 4, 2004

No decisions have been made. But we are willing to open a dialog with him and we'll see where it goes.

Elias

I know Buxley is ready for the dialog to open.

My question is - - When are you going to open the dialog with him?

November 8, 2004

No decisions have been made. But we are willing to open a dialog with him and we'll see where it goes.

Elias

I know Buxley is ready for the dialog to open.

My question is - - When are you going to open the dialog with him?

You hit the nail on the head.

November 8, 2004

Have TPTB been in communications with Buxley since September?

No we haven't. It honestly just fell off my radar when we had more pressing issues with the site to deal with. I sent him an email yesterday with a similar note to let him know we haven't forgotten.

Have TPTB made a decision about allowing Buxley access to gc.com data?

Are TPTB going to work with Buxley to try to come up with a fix that will allow Buxley to access gc.com data?

No decisions have been made. But we are willing to open a dialog with him and we'll see where it goes.

Elias

I guess I'd appreciate a brief description from Groundspeak of the basic problem. Why was access pulled ?

Speaking for me only, I know this action was 'very' detrimental to my overall 'geocaching experience'. The ability to quickly surf the maps and break out the new caches on them with a (in my opinion) far superior interface on Buxley's is something I definitely miss.

Simply showing the new caches in a different color with the ability to drill down a bit into the map was a brilliant user interface design on Buxley's site that only helped geocaching as a whole in my opinion.

I sure can't think of any reason why turning off their access to the data could help anybody. What was the reason, and what's it gonna take to turn the data back on ?

Edited November 8, 2004 by vds

2.3k · November 8, 2004

Have TPTB been in communications with Buxley since September?

No we haven't. It honestly just fell off my radar when we had more pressing issues with the site to deal with. I sent him an email yesterday with a similar note to let him know we haven't forgotten.

Have TPTB made a decision about allowing Buxley access to gc.com data?

Are TPTB going to work with Buxley to try to come up with a fix that will allow Buxley to access gc.com data?

No decisions have been made. But we are willing to open a dialog with him and we'll see where it goes.

Elias

I guess I'd appreciate a brief description from Groundspeak of the basic problem. Why was access pulled ?

Speaking for me only, I know this action was 'very' detrimental to my overall 'geocaching experience'. The ability to quickly surf the maps and break out the new caches on them with a (in my opinion) far superior interface on Buxley's is something I definitely miss.

Simply showing the new caches in a different color with the ability to drill down a bit into the map was a brilliant user interface design on Buxley's site that only helped geocaching as a whole in my opinion.

I sure can't think of any reason why turning off their access to the data could help anybody. What was the reason, and what's it gonna take to turn the data back on ?

Read the first 9 pages of this thread to get up to speed. Tha answer you seek is there.

November 8, 2004

Read the first 9 pages of this thread to get up to speed. Tha answer you seek is there.

I've read this whole thread and I didn't really see an answer. This last question, like the one in the 2 previous posts, is very valid. I think the ball is in Groundspeak's court and I am anxious to hear when Buxley might be back. I don't want to see the issue get swept under the rug.

November 9, 2004

Agreed. I go to two places to find caches. Buxley's is usually first, so I can scan an area, and then to the GC.com page that lists the nearest caches to that one.

I feel that the map that GC.com offers is not as good. I dont want panning, I dont want fancy pictures of containers. I think it is not half as good. Their map is small, and busy looking. Hard to pick out caches from streets, and other things.

I support bringing buxley back up too. I love both gc.com and buxleys.

November 17, 2004

ED, anything new??

1.2k · November 17, 2004

As frustrating as it is, it has been made very clear that we will hear nothing until something major is decided and implemented.

If nothing is ever decided or implemented, then we will never hear anything (despite our questions, begs, and whines).

Personally, I have given up hope of ever using Buxlesy's again. If some point in the future it comes back on-line, when I will be thrilled (and suprised). Until that happens, I have resigned myself to the fact that is was good while it lasted, but it's time to move on and use other options.

Ed (Nelson, not Hall)

The Badge & The Butterfly

November 17, 2004

As frustrating as it is, it has been made very clear that we will hear nothing until something major is decided and implemented.

If nothing is ever decided or implemented, then we will never hear anything (despite our questions, begs, and whines).

Personally, I have given up hope of ever using Buxlesy's again. If some point in the future it comes back on-line, when I will be thrilled (and suprised). Until that happens, I have resigned myself to the fact that is was good while it lasted, but it's time to move on and use other options.

Ed (Nelson, not Hall)

The Badge & The Butterfly

The thing is Buxley's has never gone offline. He continues to operate just as he did before gc.com blocked his access listing those caches from others that also chose "other options".

With the lack of dialogue I can understand your giving up hope on this end however.

November 17, 2004

The thing is Buxley's has never gone offline. He continues to operate just as he did before gc.com blocked his access listing those caches from others that also chose "other options".

Buxley STILL maps all the GC.Com caches posted before August of 2004 and you can use it to get an outline of the caches in a given area. After doing the research and printing any pages you need, pick one of these caches and click the "nearest caches" button on its page. That way you won't miss any "new" (post August 2004) hides. An extra step, but still easier than using GC Maps in my opinion.

November 17, 2004

And of course Buxley still maps all Navicache.com caches because Navicache.com didn't block Buxley.

1.2k · November 18, 2004

The Badge & The Butterfly

The thing is Buxley's has never gone offline. He continues to operate just as he did before gc.com blocked his access listing those caches from others that also chose "other options".

With the lack of dialogue I can understand your giving up hope on this end however.

Okay...poor choice of words on my part.

I meant "when Buxley's again has access to gc.com and can update his maps".

Ed

2.1k · November 22, 2004

Elias and Jeremy,

Sending an email saying that you are willing to open a dialog is not the same as actually opening a dialog.

I am struggling against my internal cynic who insists that you have been playing a delaying game since September, and that if you wanted to resolve this discussion it could be done very quickly in one of 2 ways.

1) Gc.com could work out some way for Buxley to access gc.com data to allow him to keep his maps current

2) Gc.com could announce that they have no wish to allow Buxley to access to gc.com data to allow him to keep his maps current

To that end, I have a few questions that I would love to have answered if you have the time:

Have either of you gotten in touch with Buxley since the November 1st email?
If not, why not, and when do you plan to get in touch with him?
If you have been in touch, have you discussed working out a plan to allow him access to gc.com data to keep his maps current?
If you have no plans to work out a plan to allow Buxley access to gc.com data to keep his maps current, could you please admit it, so those of us who have been following this thread can stop having to ask you every 3-4 weeks?

I am sorry if this message comes on too strong, offends readers, or wastes the time of anyone involved, that is truly not my intention...I am simply interested in the outcome of this discussion which seems to have become stalled.

My sincerest thanks and gratitude are extended to all involved in this discussion for their time, patience, and understanding.

nfa - jamie

ps - in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, no electrons were created or destroyed in the course of writing or posting this message.

November 22, 2004

Elias and Jeremy,

Sending an email saying that you are willing to open a dialog is not the same as actually opening a dialog.

I am struggling against my internal cynic who insists that you have been playing a delaying game since September, and that if you wanted to resolve this discussion it could be done very quickly in one of 2 ways.

1) Gc.com could work out some way for Buxley to access gc.com data to allow him to keep his maps current

2) Gc.com could announce that they have no wish to allow Buxley to access to gc.com data to allow him to keep his maps current

To that end, I have a few questions that I would love to have answered if you have the time:

Have either of you gotten in touch with Buxley since the November 1st email?

If not, why not, and when do you plan to get in touch with him?

If you have been in touch, have you discussed working out a plan to allow him access to gc.com data to keep his maps current?

If you have no plans to work out a plan to allow Buxley access to gc.com data to keep his maps current, could you please admit it, so those of us who have been following this thread can stop having to ask you every 3-4 weeks?

I am sorry if this message comes on too strong, offends readers, or wastes the time of anyone involved, that is truly not my intention...I am simply interested in the outcome of this discussion which seems to have become stalled.

My sincerest thanks and gratitude are extended to all involved in this discussion for their time, patience, and understanding.

nfa - jamie

ps - in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, no electrons were created or destroyed in the course of writing or posting this message.

Now see that is what I would say if I knew how to be polite.

Very good job, good questions and I think you have done a good job in summing up things and how people are feeling about this.

9.8k · November 23, 2004

There's some talk through the grapevine off the boards that this isn't going to happen and the reason is because gc.com wants $$$ for the use of "their" data. Such a shame. If true, I'm highly disappointed.

November 23, 2004

I'm surprised more people haven't simply created accounts at Navicache.com with the same username they use here to cross-list their caches. The cache will appear on Buxley's map, which will be linked to the Navicache listing. The cache owner can provide a link on that page to the geocaching.com listing for "easy logging."

It's a simple solution that allows the management at Groundspeak to remain intransigent while looking petty and foolish.

6.5k · November 23, 2004

I'm surprised more people haven't simply created accounts at Navicache.com with the same username they use here to cross-list their caches. The cache will appear on Buxley's map, which will be linked to the Navicache listing. The cache owner can provide a link on that page to the geocaching.com listing for "easy logging."

It's a simple solution that allows the management at Groundspeak to remain intransigent while looking petty and foolish.

But if you've created an account, why bother coming back to log it?

(and the answer to your question is that we all want a simple one step solution. If going threw fifty steps to get the data we want were that appealing, noone would care about gpx)

November 23, 2004

There's some talk through the grapevine off the boards that this isn't going to happen and the reason is because gc.com wants $$$ for the use of "their" data. Such a shame. If true, I'm highly disappointed.

I am sure that $$$ is the reason, but think about it, where can GS get so much free advertising as from buxley's site? probably 9/10 of the 'links' from his website will get you too GS.

Also, alot talk of cross listing, and listing only on Navicahe, but at least in my area most don't. Just to make sure I don't miss any, I need to use both, and Buxleys sure used to help with that.

38.2k · November 23, 2004

I'm surprised more people haven't simply created accounts at Navicache.com with the same username they use here to cross-list their caches. The cache will appear on Buxley's map, which will be linked to the Navicache listing. The cache owner can provide a link on that page to the geocaching.com listing for "easy logging."

It's a simple solution that allows the management at Groundspeak to remain intransigent while looking petty and foolish.

Actually a good temporary solution. Navicache is not a threat to them because of NC's paucity of cache listings, but if that starts to change GC.COM might take notice and be more responsive to their clent's needs.

November 23, 2004

There's some talk through the grapevine off the boards that this isn't going to happen and the reason is because gc.com wants $$$ for the use of "their" data. Such a shame. If true, I'm highly disappointed.

Well of course they want $$$.

Why shouldn't they? It is going to be hitting on their resources to some degree. I don't have a problem with them wanting money. I am not going down the road of who's data is it anyway. That is a very different issue and not the point.

And everybody is going to have a breaking point of how much is too much money. Does anybody who really knows what is going on behind the curtains know how much we are talking about? Feel free to send that information through email or pm if you are not comfortable putting it out here.

Posting on Navicache may not be a bad idea. But I don't know that many people will want to put in that much work. And then maintaining two listings I think will start to make both databases become cluttered with a bunch of junk. Then what happens -- will people want to log their finds in two places? I am guessing not. Will Buxley's site be able or willing to drop out the caches that are crossed posted? Or will we start to see a bunch of duplicate caches on his maps? I am not really looking for an answer to that quesiton just trying to show that there may be more to consider to what at first glance seems like a somewhat good solution.

6.4k · November 23, 2004

There's some talk through the grapevine off the boards that this isn't going to happen and the reason is because gc.com wants $$$ for the use of "their" data. Such a shame. If true, I'm highly disappointed.

Well of course they want $$$.

Why shouldn't they? It is going to be hitting on their resources to some degree. I don't have a problem with them wanting money. I am not going down the road of who's data is it anyway. That is a very different issue and not the point.

And everybody is going to have a breaking point of how much is too much money. Does anybody who really knows what is going on behind the curtains know how much we are talking about? Feel free to send that information through email or pm if you are not comfortable putting it out here.

Posting on Navicache may not be a bad idea. But I don't know that many people will want to put in that much work. And then maintaining two listings I think will start to make both databases become cluttered with a bunch of junk. Then what happens -- will people want to log their finds in two places? I am guessing not. Will Buxley's site be able or willing to drop out the caches that are crossed posted? Or will we start to see a bunch of duplicate caches on his maps? I am not really looking for an answer to that quesiton just trying to show that there may be more to consider to what at first glance seems like a somewhat good solution.

Man, I'm agreeing with Grizzly twice in one year? :yikes:

First off, "through the grapevine" is almost meaningless. I could say I heard through the grapevine that the real reason is Buxley wants Geocaching.com to pay HIM for hosting the maps. Buxley has not been shy in publicizing the issues so far to date. So until I hear it from him or GC.com, I'll leave the grapevines for producing grapes. But what the heck, let's go with AtlantaGal's rumor; just for fun.

It's not a matter of who's data it is, it's a matter of who's resources are being used. There is no doubt that Buxley's uses considerably more of GC.com's resources then the average human user. As much as many idealists think the internet should be free, that's not the way it works. Data costs cash. It costs to create it. It costs to develop it. It costs to store it. It costs to host it. It costs to transfer it to someone else.

All these costs are paid by Groundspeak. That means either all these costs are paid by us (along with enough money to pay people to live on while they make it all happen) the users, or by the occasional sponsor. It's bad enough that some users have to subsidize other users. Does anyone really think the tiny bit of advertising they view on this site pays for their use? The money comes from ALL the users who support the site with premium memberships and purchases. Even though I'm sure only a relatively small percentage of GC.com users actually use Buxley's. I don't use it, why should I have to subsidize it? Buxley isn't a premium member, and somehow I doubt he has a drawer full of geocaching.com T-shirts. He isn't even viewing any banner ads. His site has been costing GC.com money for years, it's only fair that he at least cover those costs.

I'm surprised more people haven't simply created accounts at Navicache.com with the same username they use here to cross-list their caches. The cache will appear on Buxley's map, which will be linked to the Navicache listing. The cache owner can provide a link on that page to the geocaching.com listing for "easy logging."

That option only really works if everyone does it, and there are two major flaws.

Flaw one. Many hiders seem to crosspost a cache there and then forget about it. At least 10% of the crossposted listings I checked a few months ago appear to be abandoned on Navicache. Caches that were clearly noted as removed or relocated on GC.com have not been updated or archived on Navicache. On top of that, Buxley doesn't remove or identify archived caches on his maps, so it's a mess that will only get worse. Buxley's already shows several hundred caches in NJ that are no longer there. Unmaintained crossposts will make it even harder to keep his maps accurate.

Flaw two. I would bet money that if one day EVERYONE that uses GC.com starting listing, searching, and logging caches at Navicache, that site would experience the same growing pains this one does. I believe it's mostly run out of pocket now; what would happen to that site if it started to cost them thousands of dollars a week (or more), just to keep online?

Edited November 23, 2004 by Mopar

November 23, 2004

Man, I'm agreeing with Grizzly twice in one year?

I hate when that happens! :laughing:

I will try not to say anything else that you may agree with for the next couple of weeks and then we can start off a new year with a clean slate. I don't want you to have to reevaluate your whole way of thinking if there is a third time. It just won't be right. And hey if we start to agree to much you would take away at least 50% (I am being kind) of the grumbling I do about the things I see here. And I really don't feel like trying to figure out what I would do with that free time. :rolleyes:

18.9k · November 23, 2004

I don't know why Mopar has to keep airing his same tired useless thoughts on Buxley's (he doesn't use it and doesn't like it and sees it as a waste of resources). However, for those of us that have found it useful, I am ready for the final answer on this. Is GC.com talking (I mean really trying to work it out) or is the answer a big fat NO with emphasis. Seems to me that all the dancing around in here has not got anything moving along. It is therefore logical to assume (my big mistake here) that GC.com is ignoring the Buxley issue and has no desire to work it out. Thats fine - just say so and quit leaving so many hanging around waiting. It is time we got a little truth here.

I have and will continue to support gc.com in many ways but would like to see a straight answer.

Thanks!!!

November 23, 2004

I'm surprised more people haven't simply created accounts at Navicache.com with the same username they use here to cross-list their caches. The cache will appear on Buxley's map, which will be linked to the Navicache listing. The cache owner can provide a link on that page to the geocaching.com listing for "easy logging."

That option only really works if everyone does it, and there are two major flaws.

No. It will work for any cache owner who is interested in having his/her caches appear on Buxley's maps, by following the simple procedure I outlined.

Flaw one. Many hiders seem to crosspost a cache there and then forget about it. At least 10% of the crossposted listings I checked a few months ago appear to be abandoned on Navicache.

I agree that sometimes happens. I also note that some caches that have been archived on this website and remain listed on navicache are in fact active, viable caches. Regardless, it is not a "flaw." This website has no business concerning itself with caches listed by other services.

Buxley doesn't remove or identify archived caches on his maps, so it's a mess that will only get worse.

This has nothing to do with the issue with geocaching.com. I agree this is a nuisance, but it is not a flaw ... prior to geocaching.com blocking Buxley's, the current status of a cache was known as soon as the user clicked on the link on the map.

Flaw two. I would bet money that if one day EVERYONE that uses GC.com starting listing, searching, and logging caches at Navicache, that site would experience the same growing pains this one does. I believe it's mostly run out of pocket now; what would happen to that site if it started to cost them thousands of dollars a week (or more), just to keep online?

Once again, this is clearly not a flaw ... it is neither gc.com's business nor concern how someone else operates their website. If the scenario you suggested occurred, it would be the direct result of gc.com's intransigence.

People want a solution, Chris, not continued silence or another round of lame excuses about why something might not work.

21.9k · November 23, 2004

StarBrand, I will thank you in advance for refraining from further characterization of another geocacher's opinions as "tired" and "useless." That sort of personal characterization is contrary to our Forum Guidelines. Mopar has every right to express his opinion.

Look at the post below yours, by Bassoon Pilot. He disagrees with Mopar's opinion, but explained why -- step by step. His post contains no characterizations of the value of the contrary opinion - only why he feels differently - with the possible exception of the phrase "lame excuses" which I cannot tell whether it is directed to Mopar or the statements or inaction of the site. Perhaps that one sentence could've been toned down a bit.

I trust that further posts will likewise stick to discussion of opinions and viewpoints rather than of the people who hold them. Thank you.

Edited November 23, 2004 by Keystone Approver

6.5k · November 23, 2004

That option only really works if everyone does it, and there are two major flaws.

Flaw one. Many hiders seem to crosspost a cache there and then forget about it. At least 10% of the crossposted listings I checked a few months ago appear to be abandoned on Navicache. Caches that were clearly noted as removed or relocated on GC.com have not been updated or archived on Navicache. On top of that, Buxley doesn't remove or identify archived caches on his maps, so it's a mess that will only get worse. Buxley's already shows several hundred caches in NJ that are no longer there. Unmaintained crossposts will make it even harder to keep his maps accurate.

First, every time I've bothered to write an email with link of the now archived cache, Ed has been very happy to remove its dot.

Second, all the links to retired/archived caches I've found were on gc.com, never navi... Can you find one?

2.1k · November 24, 2004

Dear Elias and Jeremy and other gc.com Powerholders,

Sending an email saying that you are willing to open a dialog is not the same as actually opening a dialog.

I am struggling against my internal cynic who insists that you have been playing a delaying game since September, and that if you wanted to resolve this discussion it could be done very quickly in one of 2 ways.

1) Gc.com could work out some way for Buxley to access gc.com data to allow him to keep his maps current

2) Gc.com could announce that they have no wish to allow Buxley to access to gc.com data to allow him to keep his maps current

To that end, I have a few questions that I would love to have answered if you have the time:

Have either of you gotten in touch with Buxley since the November 1st email?
If not, why not, and when do you plan to get in touch with him?
If you have been in touch, have you discussed working out a plan to allow him access to gc.com data to keep his maps current?
If you have no plans to work out a plan to allow Buxley access to gc.com data to keep his maps current, could you please admit it, so those of us who have been following this thread can stop having to ask you every 3-4 weeks?

I am sorry if this message comes on too strong, offends readers, or wastes the time of anyone involved, that is truly not my intention...I am simply interested in the outcome of this discussion which seems to have become stalled.

My sincerest thanks and gratitude are extended to all involved in this discussion for their time, patience, and understanding.

nfa - jamie

ps - in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, no electrons were created or destroyed in the course of writing or posting this message.

November 24, 2004

Isn't that a dup message? Maybe I've been on /. too much...

November 24, 2004

That option only really works if everyone does it, and there are two major flaws.

Flaw one. Many hiders seem to crosspost a cache there and then forget about it. At least 10% of the crossposted listings I checked a few months ago appear to be abandoned on Navicache. Caches that were clearly noted as removed or relocated on GC.com have not been updated or archived on Navicache. On top of that, Buxley doesn't remove or identify archived caches on his maps, so it's a mess that will only get worse. Buxley's already shows several hundred caches in NJ that are no longer there. Unmaintained crossposts will make it even harder to keep his maps accurate.

First, every time I've bothered to write an email with link of the now archived cache, Ed has been very happy to remove its dot.

Second, all the links to retired/archived caches I've found were on gc.com, never navi... Can you find one?

If you do find one please let us or Ed (Buxley's) know and we will get it corrected as soon as possible. We have always worked with Ed to insure 'Retired/Archived' caches do not show on his maps and in fact the data he pulls from us contains a flag to show the cache status so that if it is Retired it will/should drop off his maps.

5.3k · November 24, 2004

It's the dual-edged sword of the politics of this site.

They won't make available a list of archived caches because people might try to hunt them and they don't provide a list of "shoot-downs" of caches for users that may have a locally cached copy of the caches to invalidate the archived ones.

Thus, users like Buxley (or even the increasingly common case of a PQ user that's stuffing them in a local database) are faced with either refetching each page from the site and being branded an evil page scraper or assuming the data remains valid until a human (that's presumably fetchedt he page somehow....) noticed the cache is toast.

The technical issues are totally solvable.

2.3k · November 24, 2004

So is staying on topic. Lets try that please.

9.8k · November 24, 2004

I can't believe the admin thinks that Mopar's comments are "ok." If he doesn't use the service, then why bother continuing to post in a thread that means NOTHING to him other than to continually aggrivate the people who would like to see Buxley have access to the data for his maps.

Those of us who ARE interested have seen Mopar's same opinion on numerous pages of this thread already. I agree with StarBrand 100% and think THAT opinion is shared by numerous individuals who DO have an interest in using Buxley's superior maps.

The maps on GC.com stink. That's the bottom line. Saying that TPTB are working on improving them for 6 months obviously isn't getting the task accomplished. I don't see any reason to run multiple pocket querys and spend hours editing them by hand, just to get what I could have gotten from Buxley if his maps were up to date. In addition, I don't really think it's a fair request to ask that I spend even more time and cross list all my caches on Navicache, a site I do not use. If GC.com cannot provide the level of service that others can, then why block them from providing that service? Instead partner with them. Quit being so greedy.

The only arguments against Buxley having data are coming from regular members here not from anyone with any clout. Why is that?

I have no problem paying $5 or whatever more a year for my premium membership to offset any real cost to Buxley being given access to the data he needs. I'm sure some type of batch file can be generated during non-peak hours to eliviate any burden on the servers. Furthermore, somewhere in this thread, I believe Buxley said he'd be willing to pay a reasonable membership amount for access to the data. So what's the REAL issue GC Admin?

And Mopar, thus far, the grapevine of people in the know has been far more informative than anyone else.

4.8k · November 24, 2004

I can't believe the admin thinks that Mopar's comments are "ok." If he doesn't use the service, then why bother continuing to post in a thread that means NOTHING to him other than to continually aggrivate the people who would like to see Buxley have access to the data for his maps.

Those of us who ARE interested have seen Mopar's same opinion on numerous pages of this thread already. I agree with StarBrand 100% and think THAT opinion is shared by numerous individuals who DO have an interest in using Buxley's superior maps.

I do not see a requirement that only those who want to complain about the situation with Buxley's should be able to post in this thread.

My interpretation is that part of why Mopar is interested is because he sees issues with Buxley's that are reason for this site to not share data or to be cautious about it. His decision not to use the Buxley maps does not mean he is not entitled to an opinion on the issue.

At the same time, certainly there are people who like the Buxley maps and want to see the issue get resolved. That is OK too. What I find unfortunate is that for a while this thread had some good dialog in it but has now seemed to have suddenly returned to general unpleasentries.

Anyway, I know people are getting impatient, but I have no reason to doubt that Elias would post here before and then just suddenly decide to ignore it all. My guess is that there is nothing to report yet, and hence, no reason for him to post. Plus I would guess that this issue is not the top priority in his job and now with the holidays coming up things could slow down further.

Edited November 24, 2004 by carleenp

November 24, 2004

So is staying on topic. Lets try that please.

There was an off topic post????

6.5k · November 24, 2004

I can't believe the admin thinks that Mopar's comments are "ok." If he doesn't use the service, then why bother continuing to post in a thread that means NOTHING to him other than to continually aggrivate the people who would like to see Buxley have access to the data for his maps.

Its not an issue of the MOD thinking what Mopar posts is "ok", its a question of if the MOD thinks Mopar has/had violated the forum guidelines. If he has, please use the yellow triangle to report him so he can be slapped like anyone else. If he hasn't, then you just deal with his posts. Even if its the same thing over and over again in each thread. Annoying? yes probably, Breach of guideline, not that i've seen.

18.9k · November 24, 2004

First of all an apology......

I did not mean to show disrespect for any - individual or thier opinion, values, thoughts or merit as a geocacher; merely the frequency of statement. I am sorry for the bad impression that I left with some folks. We all have an opionion and the right to share it.

However, keep in mind that I was reffered to as a "lazy" cacher earlier in this same thread - please apply ALL rules evenly across the board. Thank You.

As for my questions about Buxleys? (see above) Anybody know why this topic is being given such a low priority by TPTB??

21.9k · November 24, 2004

StarBrand, thanks for that post, I do not recall a prior post that said that about you but if it is as you say it is, then you are right. As for the frequency of posts, the same could be said of, for example, NFA, who copied and pasted the exact same post two times yesterday. That's frowned upon as a matter of good etiquette.

As for the priority given to this issue, see earlier posts in this thread. Jeremy has designated Elias as the Groundspeak representative taking the lead on this issue. Elias has said that his involvement in various critical projects has kept this item lower on his priority list than those other items.

6.4k · November 24, 2004

I can't believe the admin thinks that Mopar's comments are "ok." If he doesn't use the service, then why bother continuing to post in a thread that means NOTHING to him other than to continually aggravate the people who would like to see Buxley have access to the data for his maps.

I believe I've admitted that some people find Buxley's site useful. There is no disputing that. I still feel it's a low percentage of the total users of the site, and ANY 3rd party website that uses this sites resources for it's own purposes should pay for it, rather then this site subsidizing it.

I think it's pretty ironic ANYONE would complain about my posts in this of all threads, since it is basically 9 pages of the same 5-6 people posting the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over.................

I guess it's ok as long as it's YOUR opinion?

November 24, 2004

...ANY 3rd party website that uses this sites resources for it's own purposes should pay for it, rather then this site subsidizing it.

I think Mopar summed it up best with that statement.

November 25, 2004

Has anybody thought that GC.com and Buxley may be trying to work towards integrating Buxley's technology for mapping caches into the GC.com website? You know... get the best of both worlds?

Acer0001

6.5k · November 25, 2004

Has anybody thought that GC.com and Buxley may be trying to work towards integrating Buxley's technology for mapping caches into the GC.com website? You know... get the best of both worlds?

Acer0001

never happen (again? <_< )

9.8k · November 25, 2004

Has anybody thought that GC.com and Buxley may be trying to work towards integrating Buxley's technology for mapping caches into the GC.com website? You know... get the best of both worlds?

Acer0001

I was informed that the basic maps, such as the ones used by Buxley, are available free for personal use, but when a commercial entity such as groudspeak wants the same basic maps, there's a hefty fee involved. Don't know if that's true or not, but FWIW, it's what I have been told.

Edited November 25, 2004 by AtlantaGal

1.4k · November 25, 2004

I was informed that the basic maps, such as the ones used by Buxley, are available free for personal use, but when a commercial entity such as groudspeak wants the same basic maps, there's a hefty fee involved. Don't know if that's true or not, but FWIW, it's what I have been told.

This is the second time you have mentioned some sort of "Inside" information. Would you please let us know the source of this information? Quoting information without a source is more like rumor.

There's some talk through the grapevine off the boards that this isn't going to happen and the reason is because gc.com wants $$$ for the use of "their" data. Such a shame. If true, I'm highly disappointed.

1.3k · November 25, 2004

The maps that Buxley makes are the US Census Tigermaps that are free to anybody. I'm sure if you dig around on the website you can find the terms of use for them.

Here's the link to my It's not easy being green cache. The last link above Logged Visits (28 total. Visit the Gallery) says Tiger Census Maps.

Anybody can input data to make their maps using this map server.

I'm not sure if there are or are not fees involved for companies - but that could explain why GC.com hasn't gone to great lengths to make the "detailed" maps that Buxley has "created". (I'm sure there are other reasons as well). However, GC.com IS linking to the Tigermap server to create basic maps.

I have always found it funny to see people go on and on about the grea maps that Buxley "makes".

Actually, after checking the FAQ I found this:

The Census Bureau will not commit to diverting its resources to subsidize the operations of others, no matter how worthy the goals of such an application. It was not intended as a substitute for agencies, businesses, or other organizations developing their own mapping applications. If you need a major map plotting application for your site you should develop your own software and hardware system to support it. Any application that uses our mapping service does so at the user's risk. The Census Bureau plans continue to try to maintain the TIGER Map Service for at least the near future at its current level, but we accept no obligation to provide special support (or timely repair) of the system so that it can meet some other governmental, commercial or organizational mission.

I'm sure there's more information on the TOS of the maps on the website somewhere.

southdeltan

Edited November 25, 2004 by southdeltan

2.1k · November 27, 2004

Dear Elias and Jeremy and other gc.com Powerholders,

Sending an email saying that you are willing to open a dialog is not the same as actually opening a dialog.

I am struggling against my internal cynic who insists that you have been playing a delaying game since September, and that if you wanted to resolve this discussion it could be done very quickly in one of 2 ways.

1) Gc.com could work out some way for Buxley to access gc.com data to allow him to keep his maps current

2) Gc.com could announce that they have no wish to allow Buxley to access to gc.com data to allow him to keep his maps current

To that end, I have a few questions that I would love to have answered if you have the time:

Have either of you gotten in touch with Buxley since the November 1st email?

If not, why not, and when do you plan to get in touch with him?

If you have been in touch, have you discussed working out a plan to allow him access to gc.com data to keep his maps current?

If you have no plans to work out a plan to allow Buxley access to gc.com data to keep his maps current, could you please admit it, so those of us who have been following this thread can stop having to ask you every 3-4 weeks?

I am sorry if this message comes on too strong, offends readers, or wastes the time of anyone involved, that is truly not my intention...I am simply interested in the outcome of this discussion which seems to have become stalled.

My sincerest thanks and gratitude are extended to all involved in this discussion for their time, patience, and understanding.

nfa - jamie

ps - in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, no electrons were created or destroyed in the course of writing or posting this message.

Hi,

I'm bumping this in the assumption that Elias and Jermey must have missed it before, as Elias was so great about answering my questions of about a month ago...

Thanks so much!

nfa-jamie

21.9k · November 28, 2004

Kindly refrain from posting the same post over and over again, whether by quoting or otherwise. Further duplicate posts will be deleted. Thanks.

2.1k · November 28, 2004

Hi,

Agreed...I will refrain from posting the exact same post again and again; but this entire thread (and to some extent the forums in general) has been a repetition of the same questions over and over again. If TPTB answered the questions posed, there would be no need to post again and again.

That being said, I will make a point of varying my future posts in this thread enough to keep you happy.

nfa-jamie

1.3k · November 28, 2004

If I was them, I'd just go ahead and say no. The impatience of some people is mindboggling. TPTB said they'd let you know about developments when there are developments.

I do NOT get why some people are trying to make it sound like Groundspeak is lying or trying to confuse people. "They don't say anything and hope we'll forget about it" statement is one of the silliest things I've heard. (I'm not saying somebody specifically said any of that, but that's what I'm inferring from some of the posts).

I do not understand why so many people have such low opinions of other human beings. Not everybody is dishonest or underhanded.

They said they'll let you know something, and they will. You can bet they are well aware of the thread and all posts to it.

southdeltan

2.1k · November 28, 2004

If I was them, I'd just go ahead and say no. The impatience of some people is mindboggling. TPTB said they'd let you know about developments when there are developments.

I do NOT get why some people are trying to make it sound like Groundspeak is lying or trying to confuse people. "They don't say anything and hope we'll forget about it" statement is one of the silliest things I've heard. (I'm not saying somebody specifically said any of that, but that's what I'm inferring from some of the posts).

I do not understand why so many people have such low opinions of other human beings. Not everybody is dishonest or underhanded.

They said they'll let you know something, and they will. You can bet they are well aware of the thread and all posts to it.

southdeltan

It's been since August without any movement or serious comment...is it really that terrible to ask questions? If they went ahead and said no, it would at least be an answer.

nfa-jamie

Edited November 28, 2004 by NFA

1.3k · November 28, 2004

It's been since August without any movement or serious comment...is it really that terrible to ask questions? If they went ahead and said no, it would at least be an answer.

Asking the same question over and over is unnecessary at best and insulting at worst. Groundspeak is aware of the "problem" (if you want to call it a problem - I don't think it's that big an issue actually) and they'll let you know something when they have something to tell you (and the rest of the concerned Buxley's users).

I think the fact that they haven't said no would be considered a good thing by the people that like Buxley's website. Some people are so impatient that they'd rather be told no than to have to wait. I imagine Christmas is an agonizing time of year for these people.

I do not beleive the staff at Groundspeak is dishonest or stupid.

They said they'd share information when they have it, and I beleive they will.

Patience, grasshopper. <_<

southdeltan

Buxley New Caches Not Being Updated ?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment